1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

1/7

New radiometric dating of water management features at the prehistoric PurronDam Complex, Tehuacan Valley, Puebla, Mexico

Michael J. Aiuvalasit a,*, James A. Neely b, Mark D. Bateman c

a Geoarcheology Research Associates, 92 Main Street, Suite 207, Yonkers, NY 10701, USAb Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C3200, Austin, TX 78712, USAc Sheffield Centre for International Drylands Research, University of Sheffield, Winter Street, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 16 September 2009

Received in revised form

4 December 2009

Accepted 9 December 2009

Keywords:

Water management

Mexico

Chronology

Geoarchaeology

Formative Period

Post-Classic Period

a b s t r a c t

Recent investigations at the prehistoric Purron Dam Complex in the Tehuacan Valley of southern Puebla,

Mexico applied radiometric dating to more securely date the complex. Ceramic-based dating in the

19600s placed the Dams origin to the Formative Period. While Formative Period origins are widely

accepted, the chronology lacks resolution and direct dates. Samples from impounded sediments behind

the dam and from prehistoric canal fill were dated through Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) as

well as both standard 14C and accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) assays. These samples directly date

the functioning of the water management features within the complex. The results confirm the

Formative Period origins of the Purron Dam, and offer new insights into the construction and functioning

of the dam and irrigation system.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The discovery and initial study of the Purron Dam Complex was

conducted in 1964 as part of the Tehuacan Archaeological and

Botanical Project. The existing chronology (Woodbury and Neely,

1972) of the complex is based on relative dating of ceramic

assemblages associated with the dam and related habitation sites

that converge around initial permanent settlement and dam

construction at approximately 750 B.C, during the Middle Forma-

tive Period (Table 1). Radiocarbon dated plant remains of crops

requiring irrigation for their cultivation from the nearby Purron

Cave also supports a Middle Formative origin. Modifications in

ceramic assemblages at sites within the complex suggest aban-

donment during the Classic Period, followed by a reoccupationduring the Post-Classic Period. Limited field investigations since the

initial discovery (i.e., Spencer, 1979) did not reevaluate the chro-

nology of the complex.

In a broad review of prehispanic water management in Meso-

america, Manzanilla (1994) infers that the Purron Dam and other

large-scale water management features in Mesoamerica date to the

Classic and Post-Classic Periods. The claim is based on the critique

that archaeologists have collected too little chronological data from

these systems and on the interpretation that larger work forces and

more complex socio-political control would have been required to

construct these systems than those that existed during the Forma-

tive. Although unconfirmed by undertaking her own fieldwork at

the site, this interpretation fundamentally challenges the existing

chronology of the Purron Dam Complex. While this inference is not

supported by the population history of the complex or the stratig-

raphy of thedam and itsrelated features, it speaksto thenecessity of

improving chronological interpretations by absolute dating.

During recent investigations in the Tehuacan Valley, an effort

was made to refine the chronology of the Purron Dam Complex. As

part of a pilot geoarchaeological investigation aiming to further

contextualize the setting of the Purron Dam complex, we examinedimpounded sediments behind the Purron Dam and sediments

within a recently discovered prehistoric canal (Aiuvalasit et al.,

2007). As these sediments are contemporaneous to the function of

the water management features, the potential to cross-date the

sediments to the architectural features was recognized. Optically

stimulated luminescence (OSL) as well as standard 14C and accel-

erated mass spectrometry (AMS) analyses were employed to

directly date the sediments behind the dam and sediments within

the canal. These methods were used to take advantage of the

datable materials, and to corroborate the results of the respective

dating methods.* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 607 621 3025.

E-mail address: [email protected](M.J. Aiuvalasit).

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j a s

0305-4403/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.019

Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 12071213
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jashttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jashttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403mailto:[email protected]

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

2/7

This report presents an overview of the natural landscape and

prehistoric cultural context for this investigation, the results of

radiometric dating of sediments associated with the water

management features, and a reevaluation of chronological models

of the Purron Dam Complex.

2. The Purron Dam Complex

The Purron Dam Complex is located at the southern end of the

Tehuacan Valley in the state of Puebla, Mexico (Fig.1). The valley isarid and forms the southernmost extension of the highlands of

Central Mexico. A mean annual precipitation of only 400 mm in the

valley dictates that some form of water management is required for

intensive agriculture.

The features that comprise the Purron Dam Complex are situated

in the Barranca Lencho Diego, a high-gradient drainage along the

eastern side of the Tehuacan Valley in the rain shadow of the Sierra

Madre Oriental. The barranca has a drainage area of 30.5 km2 that

includes portions of Cerro Chichiltepec and piedmont (foothills)

before the drainage debouches into the Rio Salado ( Fig. 2). As it

emerges from the steep-sided canyons of the piedmont, the barranca

widens and its gradient decreases. Alluvial fans are deposited across

the barranca floor, which widens to 1000 m. The barranca again

narrows as outcropping foothills confine the drainage to 400 m, andit stays this narrow for the remainder of its course. It is at this

constriction, where thebarrancais at its narrowest, that the Purron

Dam was constructed (Fig. 3). The dam effectively manipulates the

hydrology of thebarrancaby blocking the drainage where the valleyis at its narrowest, immediately down stream of the broad flood-

plain. This placement maximizes the accommodation space for

impounded water behind the dam in the wide upstream floodplain.

Ultimately the dam was not an isolated feature but rather the focus

of an entire settlement complex (Neely et al., 2005a,b,c; Spencer,

1979; Woodbury and Neely, 1972) (seeFig. 3). There is convincing

evidence from stratigraphically differentiated architectural patterns

within the dam, associated water management features, and habi-

tation structures that the dam was constructed in stages. In its final

form the Purron Dam is the largest prehistoric water management

structure in Mesoamerica at 24 m high, 106 m wide, and 400 m in

length (Figs. 2 and 3).

Our recent work (Neely et al., 2005a,b,c; Neely and Aiuvalasit, in

preparation-a) has identified additional components to the watermanagement infrastructure of the Purron Dam Complex. These

include: several smaller stone-faced dams buried along the banks

of the drainage upstream from the Purron Dam; a prehistoric canal

(the Santa Maria Canal) that bypasses the Purron Dam; rock-

bordered floodwater fields along the margins of the alluvial fans;

and thick fine-grained aggradational sequences of alluvium

impounded behind the dam (Fig. 3). Several of these features were

discovered by examining profiles of arroyos, which have cut

through aggradational sequences behind Purron Dam and provide

exposures of alluvium and cultural features buried by sedimenta-

tion behind the reservoir. Recent mapping established elevation

relationships across natural landforms and water management

features, which was critical for correlating dam construction levels

to sedimentation sequences behind the Purron Dam.

3. Radiometric dating

3.1. Dating methods

Samples for radiometric dating were collected from two

proveniences within the complex: 1) an arroyo-exposed strati-

graphic profile of the reservoir sedimentation fillbehind the Purron

Dam, and 2) a test trench cut through the Santa Maria Canal on the

east slope of the Cerro Lencho Diego, located 350 m north of the

north end of the dam (Fig. 3). Mark Bateman, University of Shef-

field, England conducted the OSL dating, while Beta Analytic Inc.

(2007),Miami, Florida, performed the radiometric and AMS assays.

Fig. 1. The Tehuacan Valley, showing drainage basin boundary (dashed line) and site

locations as indicated byMacNeish (1967: 26 and 2001: 706).

Fig. 2. Overview of the Purron Dam complex, note internal architectural elements of

Purron Dam exposed by an arroyo cut in the foreground.

Table 1

Prehistoric chronology of Tehaucan Valley.

Calendar years Mesoamerican Archaeological

Period (Evans, 2004)

Tehuacan Valley

Archaeological Phase

(MacNeish, 2001)

1550 AD Historic

1000 AD Post-Classic Venta Salada

Classic Palo Blanco

1 AD/BC Middle-Late Formative Santa Maria1000 BC Early-Middle Formative Ajalpan

2 00 0 BC T ra nsition, La te Arch ai c

to Formative

Purron

M.J. Aiuvalasit et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 120712131208

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

3/7

Twosediment samples were recovered for OSL analysisfrom theprofile of the reservoir fill. No samples for radiocarbon dating were

collected because no datable materials were observed in the profile.

Sample Shfd06131 was analyzed at the single aliquot level using

5 mm diameter aliquots of extracted and cleaned quartz (SeeTable

2). Twenty-four replicate palaeodoses (De) for the sample were

made, all of which had good OSL growth characteristics with dose,

met the criteria of having a recycling ratio of 1 0.10, and were

normally distributed (Fig. 4). The second OSL sample (Shfd06132)

from the Reservoir Profile, due to the paucity of coarse-grained

quartz, was measured at the single grain level. Four aliquots, each

with 100 grains, were measured. Of the 400 grains measured, only

1% yielded grains which met the criteria of having a recycling ratio

of 1 0.20, exhibiting good growth with dose, and an error less

than 20% on the test dose. Of the four usable single grain results for

sample Shfd06132, three are within the errors of each other. Thefourth grain was excluded as a statistical outlier (Fig. 4). An artificial

aliquot was created by combining all of the single grain OSL data

from each of the aliquots used. This approach yielded one aliquot

that met the quality control criteria, and this was used to calculate

a comparative date for this sample.

One sediment sample for OSL analysis was collected from the

Santa Maria Canal (Table 2), while two charcoal samples were

dated: one by standard radiometric assay and one by AMS (Table 3).

The OSL sample and one of the charcoal samples came from the

same stratigraphic horizon within the canal fill, which allowed us

to compare the results of the two methods. OSL sample Shfd06130

was at the single aliquot level. Limitations in the amount of

extracted and cleaned quartz from this sample meant that only 16

replicates could be measured; of which 7 gave results which met

Fig. 3. Purron Dam Complex map showing sampling localities.

M.J. Aiuvalasit et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 12071213 1209

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

4/7

the quality assurance criteria of the recycling ratio of 1 0.10. Of

these, a further aliquot was excluded as a statistical outlier leaving

six aliquots that are normally distributed around the mean ( Fig. 4).

3.2. Reservoir profile

The arroyo-cut reservoir was sampled because it provided the

thickest accessible profile providing stratigraphic units that could

be correlated to construction levels of the Purron Dam. This

reservoir fill profile, located 120 m east and upstream of the

southern end of the Purron Dam, was 8.4 m thick (Figs. 3 and 5).Atthe base of the profile was a 0.5 m thick exposure of the under-

lying natural surface atop which was a 2.5 m high earth and stone

dam feature. Above this dam feature was a 1.0 m deposit of coarse

alluvial sands and gravels from a high-energy flooding event. This

deposit buried the early dam, was traceable across multiple arroyo

exposures, and correlates to a gravel bed within the Purron Dam,

identified as the Phase III construction level. Above the gravel

deposit was 4.4 m layer of fine-grained sedimentation which

infilled to the height of the top of the Purron Dam, and correlates

with the Phase IV construction of the dam. The sedimentation

sequence consisted of alternating yellowish-red (5YR4/6) and

dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) silt loam, which may owe its

color to differences in bedrock lithology between the local pied-

mont and the uplands. Neither paleosols nor stratigraphic

unconformities were observed within this fine-grained sedi-

mentation sequence.

OSL samples were collected from the base of the fine-grained

sequence at 4.45 m below groundsurface (Shfd06131) and from the

top of the sequence at 0.45 m below ground surface (Shfd06132) in

order to provide a bounding chronology of the sedimentation

sequence of Phases IV and V of the Purron Dam (Fig. 5). Sample

Shfd06131 produced a mean age range of 613943 B.C (at 1 s)

(Table 2). The position of this sample at the base of the fine-grained

sedimentation sequence, immediately above the gravel deposits of

Phase III means that this date correlates to the initiation of sedi-

mentation behind the Phase IV construction of the Dam. This places

Phase IV in the Formative Period, and specifically to the Early Santa

Table 2

OSL data and ages from the Purron Dam Complex.

Sample details Lab no. Shfd06130 Shfd06131 Shfd06132 Shfd06132

Provenience Santa Maria

Canal, Profile #1

Purron Dam

Reservoir Profile #1

Purron Dam


Purron Dam


Context 192 cm, base of

canal fill

440 cm, base of fine

grain sedimentation

above Dam Phase 3

45 cm, top of

reservoir profile

45 cm, top of

reservoir profile

Method Single aliquot Single aliquot Single grain Single grainDosimetry U (PPM) 1.54 1.84 2.17 2.17

Th (PPM) 8.2 4.5 8.8 8.8

K (%) 2.52 2.76 1.96 1.96

Rb (PPM) 123 133 84.2 84.2

Moisture (%) 11.2 5.8 5.8 5.8

Dcosmic (mGy/a1) 185 9 134 7 225 11 225 11

Dose rate (mGy/a1) 3194 177 3731 210 2829 151 2829 151

Palaeodose Mean De (Gy) 7.2 1.23 10.4 0.28 2.2 0.27 2.7 0.31

Age Mean age (Kyr) 2.26 0.40 2.78 0.17 0.78 0.10 0.95 0.12

B.C./A.D. at 1 s A.D. 147653 B.C. 613943 B.C. A.D. 13271127 A.D. 1177937

Elemental concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and converted to annual dose rates using the coefficients published inAdamiec

and Aitken (1998), Marsh et al. (2002),andAitken (1998)incorporating attenuation factors relating to sediment grain sizes used, density and palaeomoisture. Cosmic dose

rates were calculated from the expression published in Prescott and Hutton (1994). De measurements were carried out on extracted course grained quartz prepared as

outlined inBateman and Catt (1996)using a Ris TL DA-15 single grain laser luminescence reader and the single aliquot regenerative dose (SAR) approach of Murray and

Wintle (2000). The De values used in the final age calculation are based on a weighted (by inverse variance) mean of replicate De values which takes into account both the

variation between each De palaeodose value and also the associated error values for each aliquot. The text and figures quote OSL ages from the year of measurement (2007)

with 1sconfidence limits which incorporate systematic uncertainties with the dosimetry data, uncertainties with the palaeomoisture content and errors associated with theDe determination.

Fig. 4. Combined probability density functions for small (5 mm) aliquots showing degree of inter-aliquot scatter. Also plotted are individual grain De (black) and the unweighted

mean De (gray).


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

5/7

Maria Phase in the local chronology (MacNeish, 2001) (Table1). The

results of the second OSLsample (Shfd06132), which came from the

top of the sedimentation sequence, were two age ranges

(depending whether the single grain or artificial aliquot data is

used): A.D. 11271327 and A.D. 9371177 (at 1s). Both correlate to

the Post-Classic Period.

3.3. Santa Maria Canal profile

The Santa Maria Canal hugs the western barranca margin

upstream from the dam (Fig. 3). The entire length of the 1.4 km longcanal is well above the maximum height of the Dam, and is situated

on a complex of colluvial slopes and alluvial terraces which were

culturallymodifiedto maintain the grade of the canal and to modify

the slopes for agricultural and habitation sites. The gypsum outcrop

of the Cerro Lencho Diego forms the western wall of the canal, and

culturally modified sediments and gypsum outcrops form its

eastern margin (Fig. 6). Water for the canal apparently came from

two sources: local runoff from the slopes and water diverted from

thebarranca.

A trench was opened to expose the infilling sequence of the

canal, provide opportunities to observe the sequence of canal

infilling, and collect one OSL sample and two charcoal samples for

dating (Fig. 6, Tables 2 and 3). The canal fill consists of approxi-

mately 240 cm of yellowish-brown (10YR5/4) to light yellowish-brown (10YR6/4) silty clay loam, with eight stratigraphic horizons

exposed in profile (Fig. 6). This trench lacked the finely bedded cut-

and-fill stratigraphy observed in other stratigraphic exposures of

the canal (Aiuvalasit et al., 2007); however it didhave ashy lensesof

charcoal, and occasional quartzite gravels and coarse sand fractions.

These quartzite sediments are not endemic to the immediate

gypsum foothills and indicate that the canal must have been fed, at

least in part, by water diverted upstream from the barranca. The

base of the canal fill sequence, at 190 cm below ground surface, was

dated by the OSL analysis of sediments and the radiometric dating

of charcoal. The radiometric date of charcoal spanned A.D. 127345

(Beta-233268) at 2s(Table 3), while the OSL date produced an age

range of 653 B.C A.D. 147 (Shfd06130) (Table 2). The calibrated

ages overlap between A.D. 127147, which suggests that the OSL

determination is influenced by partially bleached or older sand

grains within the sample. The age determinations place the earliest

infilling of the Santa Maria Canal to the Middle to Late Formative.

The second radiocarbon sample was recovered from 100 cm below

ground surface, and has a calibrated age range at 1 s of between

A.D. 632681 (Beta-233267), dating to the Mid-Classic Period.

Additionally, one Rio Salado Gray incised bowl rim sherd, dating to

the Formative Period and likely washed in from an upland site, was

found above the dated charcoal sample at 92 cm below the ground

surface.

4. Implications of the new radiometric dates

The results of the dating of sediments and charcoal from

reservoir and canal fill have a bearing on both our understanding

the Purron Dam Complex and of water management in Meso-

america. The OSL sample from the lowest/deepest sample of the

reservoir profile supports the 750600 B.C dates proposed by

Woodbury and Neely (1972: 93) for the earliest levels ofconstruction on the Purron Dam. The date is within the range of the

radiocarbon date of 777 B.C obtained from one of the well-docu-

mented fossilized canals found between San Lorenzo Teotipilco

and the city of Tehuacan(Neely, 2001; Neely and Castellon Huerta,

2003; Neely and Rincon Mautner, 2004). This indicates that several

types of large-scale water management were well established and

functioning in the Tehuacan Valley by the Middle Formative Period.

This seeming anomaly and its ramifications vis-a-vis the

Table 3

Radiocarbon dates from the Santa Maria Canal.

Lab no. Provenience Context Material

(Method)

d13C 14C age B.P. Calibrated age range B.C./A.D. and relative area under distribution

1s(68%) 2s(95%)

Beta-

233267

Santa Maria

Canal Profile #1

Canal fill, 100

cmbs

Charcoal

(AMS)

15.7 1370 40 BP A.D. 632681 1.0 A.D. 599712,

A.D. 746767

0.947,

0.053

Beta-

233268

Santa Maria

Canal Profile #1

Canal fill, 190

cmbs

Charcoal

(standard

radiometric)

23.7 1790 40 BP A.D.139160,

165196, 208258,

297345

0.139, 0.218,

0.471, 0.172

A.D. 127345 1.0

Calibration was performed using CALIB 5.0.2 (Stuiver and Reimer, 1993). The text and figures quote the most probable interval after calibration (Reimer et al., 2004).

Fig. 5. Reservoir profile sampling locality in relation to the southern profile of the Purro n Dam.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

6/7

contemporary socio-political organization in the Tehaucan Valley

will be explored in forthcoming works (Neely and Aiuvalasit, in

preparation-a,b).

The two uppermost OSL samples from the Reservoir Profile date

later (i.e., ca. A.D. 1057 and A.D. 1227) than the cross-dated ceramic

materials (ca. A.D. 200300) recovered from the final construction

Level #4 of the Purron Dam. However, those same OSL dates

bracket the ceramic chronology (post A.D. 1100) obtained for the

fifth construction level of the dam.Woodbury and Neely (1972: 94)hypothesized that during the fifth construction level the dam was

not used for water management, but as a large building platform

upon which a Post-Classic pyramid and other structures were built.

Thus, the uppermost OSL samples probably date sediments eroded

into the reservoir area after the dam ceased to function as a water

management feature.

Of equal significance are the OSL and radiocarbon dates recov-

ered from the Santa Maria Canal. By considering the results of the

AMS and OSL together the uncertainties of each method were

allayed by complimentary results from the sampleat the base of the

canal profile. Although the wide standard deviation of the OSL

sample spans multiple cultural periods, which limits its interpre-

tative potential, the AMS dates are inclusive within the latter

portions of the OSL sample range. This gives some confidence thatthe sediment infilling and incorporation of charcoal are contem-

poraneous rather than the latter being recycled from elsewhere in

the basin. The radiocarbon date constrained the earliest infilling of

the Santa Maria Canal to the Middle to Late Formative Period,

which would have occurred after the construction of the first three

to four phases of Purron Dam. The same sedimentation process

continued into the Mid-Classic Period as determined by the AMS

date higher in the profile. It should be noted that maintenance of

canals typically involves cleaning out infilling sediments, so it is

possible that the age determinates of sediments and charcoal post-

date its construction and initial use. The Santa Maria Canal func-

tioned to expand areas of agriculture by irrigating small agricultural

fields on the stepped terraces along the western slopes of the

barranca. It also may have diverted a portion of the flow from the

Barranca Lencho Diego to minimize the potential impact of high

discharges which could have damaged the dam, or possibly to keep

water out of the reservoir area during periods of maintenance and

construction of the dam.

Thus, even with a small number of samples, this paper

contributes to the mounting evidence that water management

developed in the Formative and that some early water manage-

ment infrastructure was large and complex. There is now sufficient

evidence to propose that the early dates presented for watermanagement in the Tehuacan Valley and elsewhere in Mexico are

valid and reasonable (Neely, 2009a,b). They may also suggest

several independent inventions of the technology in Mexico. The

aforementioned early dates from Mexico are seen to correspond

well with the first millennium B.C. and earlier dates obtained from

canal systems in the American Southwest (Damp et al., 2002;

Mabry, 2008). The roughly contemporaneous data from Mexico and

the American Southwest argue that independent technologies may

have evolved in these two widely separated regions.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de

Mexico for granting us a permit to conduct fieldwork. Blas CastellonHuerta, Marco Fragoso F, Charles D. Frederick, and especially Carlos

Rincon Mautner, contributed significantly to the success of our

project. A timely review by Joseph Schuldenrein and assistance

with graphics by Mark A. Smith was most appreciated.

References

Adamiec, G., Aitken, M.J., 1998. Dose-rate conversion factors update. Ancient TL 16,3750.

Aitken, M.J., 1998. An Introduction to Optical Dating: The Dating of QuaternarySediments by the Use of Photo-Stimulated Luminescence. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Aiuvalasit, M.J., Neely, J.A., Rincon Mautner, C., Bateman, M.D., 2007. The PurronDam Complex Revisited. In: Results of a Pilot Geoarchaeological Investigation at

a Prehistoric Water Management System in the Tehuacan Valley of Southern

Fig. 6. Santa Maria Canal Profile.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

7/7

Mexico. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Geological Society ofAmerica. October 31, 2007. Denver.

Bateman, M.D., Catt, J.A., 1996. An absolute chronology for the raised beach depositsat Sewerby, E. Yorkshire, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 11, 389395.

Beta Analytic Inc., 2007. Report of Radiocarbon Dating Analyses: The Purron Damcomplex, Tehuacan Valley, Puebla, Mexico. Miami.

Damp, J.E., Hall, S.A., Smith, S.J., 2002. Early irrigation on the Colorado Plateau nearZuni Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 67 (4), 665676.

Evans, Susan T, 2004. Ancient Mexico and Central America. Thames and Hudson,New York.

Mabry, J.B., 2008. Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a SouthwesternFloodplain. Anthropological Papers 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

MacNeish, R.S., 1967. Field and laboratory techniques. In: Byers, D.S. (Ed.), Envi-ronment and Subsistence: The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 1.University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 2533.

MacNeish, R.S., 2001. Tehuacan region. In: Evans, S.T., Webster, D.L. (Eds.),Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America, pp. 705710.

Manzanilla, Linda,1994. Indicadores arqueologicos de obras hidraulicas: problemasde interpretacion. Ediciones de la Casa Chata. In: Rojas Rabiela, T. (Ed.), Agri-cultura Indgena: Pasado Y Presente. Centro de Investigaciones y EstudiosSuperiores en antropologa Social (CIESAS), Tlalpan, Mexico, pp. 4357.

Marsh, R.E., Prestwich, W.V., Rink, W.J., Brennan, B.J., 2002. Monte Carlo determi-nations of the beta dose rate to tooth enamel. Radiation Measurements 35,609616.

Murray, A.S., Wintle, A.G., 2000. Luminescence dating of quartz using an improvedsingle-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiation Measurements 32, 5773.

Neely, J.A., 2001. A Contextual study of the Fossilized prehispanic canal systems ofthe Tehuacan valley, Puebla, Mexico. Antiquity 75, 505506.

Neely, J.A.,2009a. Prehistoric watermanagement in highlandMesoamerica. In Waterand Humanity: Historic Overview. In: Scarborough, V.L., Yasuda, Y. (Eds.). TheUNESCO History of Water and Civilization, vol. VII. Springer, New York.

Neely, J.A., 2009b. An overview of prehistoric water management in the TehuacanValley of Puebla, Mexico. In: Diversidad biologica y cultural en la region deTehuacan Cuicatlan. Memorias del Primer Congreso. Primer Congreso de laReserva de la Biosfera Tehuacan-Cuicatlan, edited by Dr. Alejandro Zavala,Aurelio Perez Hernandez, Carlos Vergara, and Jose Carlos Pizana, UniversidadAutonoma Metropolitana (UAM) y la Comision Nacional de Areas NaturalesProtegidas (CONANP) de la Secretara del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales(SEMARNAT). Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico.

Neely, J.A., Aiuvalasit, M.J. New Light on the Prehistoric Purron Dam Complex,Tehuacan Valley. Puebla, Mexico., in preparation-a.

Neely, J.A., Aiuvalasit, M.J., Prehispanic Water Management and Irrigation in theTehuacan Valley. In: New Evidence on Distribution, Chronology, and Environ-mental Contexts., in preparation-b.

Neely, J.A., Castellon Huerta, B.S., 2003. Avance del Estudio Contextual de los Sis-temas de Canales Fosilizados del Valle de Tehuacan, Puebla. Arqueologa 29(Segunda Epoca), 157160. Coo rdinacion Nacional de Arqueologa, InstitutoNacional de Antropologia e Historia de Mexico Mexico, D.F.

Neely, J.A., Rincon Mautner, C.A., 2004. Los Canales Fosilizados del Valle deTehuacan: Un Proyecto Arqueologico con Levantamiento Cartografico y Rec-oleccion Multidisciplinaria de Muestras. Informe Final al Consejo deArqueologa del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de Mexico,Mexico, D.F.

Neely, J.A., Rincon Mautner, C.A., Castellon Huerta, B.S., 2005a. The Purron Dam

Complex Revisited, Tehuacan Valley, Puebla, Mexico. In: Paper presented to the70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Salt Lake City,Utah. March 30-April 3, 2005.

Neely, J.A., Rincon Mautner, C.A., Hernandez Garciadiego, R., Ramrez Sorensen, F.,2005b. Los sistemas prehistoricos y virreinales de manejo de aguas e irriga-cion en el valle de Tehuacan, Puebla Mexico: una continuacion del estudio.Informe de la temporada 2004. Informe Parcial (Provisional) al Consejo deArqueologa del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia de Mexico,Mexico, D.F.

Neely, J.A., Rincon Mautner, C.A., Hernandez Garciadiego, R., Aiuvalasit, M.J., 2005c.New Light on the Purron Dam Complex: A Prehistoric Water ManagementSystem in the Tehuacan Valley of Southern Mexico. In: Paper presented at the4th Annual Meeting of the International Water History Association (IWHA).December 14, 2005, Paris.

Prescott, J.R., Hutton, J.T., 1994. Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for lumi-nescence and ESR dating: large depths and long-term time variations. RadiationMeasurements 2 (3), 497500.

Spencer, C.S.,1979. Irrigation, administration, and society in formative tehuacan. In:Drennen, R.D. (Ed.), Prehistoric, Social, Political, and Economic Development inthe Area of the Tehuacan Valley: Some Results of the Palo Blanco Project.University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, pp. 1375.Technical Reports 11.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., 1993. Extended14C database and revised CALIB radiocarbonprogram. Radiocarbon 35, 215230.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H.,Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L.,Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A.,Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Ramsey, C.B., Reimer, R.W.,Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J.,Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration,260 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 10291058.

Woodbury, R.B., Neely, J.A., 1972. Water control systems of the Tehuacan valley. In:MacNeish, Richard S. (Ed.), Chronology and Irrigation: The Prehistory of theTehuacan Valley, vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 81153.


1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S0305440309004695-main